Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated

On January 25, 2019, Southern Investigative Reporting Foundation published a report alleging that Corcept paid doctors to prescribe its drug Korlym for off-label uses in 2016 - 2017. The report condemned the company for exploiting regulatory loopholes, charging patients an excessive price for its lone drug product, and touting evidence for the drug's effectiveness that - according to SIRF – doesn't exist. On this news, shares of Corcept fell $1.52, or 11%, to close at $12.29 on January 25, 2019, thereby injuring investors.

Then, on January 31, 2019, likely due to the increased scrutiny of its illicit sales practices, the Company forecast a sharp slowdown in sales of Korlym, projecting full-year 2019 revenue of $285 million to $315 million while investors and analysts had expected approximately $328 million. On this news, the Company’s share price fell $1.15, or more than 10%, to close at $10.03 per share on February 1, 2019, on unusually heavy trading volume.

On February 5, 2019, Blue Orca Capital published a report alleging that Corcept’s “sole specialty pharmacy and exclusive distributor is an undisclosed related party” and that the relationship “creates a material risk that the Company is using its captured pharmacy to boost sales, hide losses, or engage in other financial shenanigans.”

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company had improperly paid doctors to promote its drug Korlym; (2) that the Company aggressively promoted Korlym for off-label uses; (3) that the Company’s sole specialty pharmacy was a related party; (4) that the Company artificially inflated its revenue and sales using illicit sales practices through a related party; (5) that such practices are reasonably likely to lead to regulatory scrutiny; and (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.